Time: Fri Oct 03 09:02:55 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA29249;
Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:33:36 -0700 (MST)
id LAA01215; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:30:14 -0400 (EDT)
id LAA01186; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:30:03 -0400 (EDT)
id AA01421; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 04:46:09 -0400
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA17293;
Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:14:54 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 19:14:19 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar] (by way of Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar])
Subject: SNET: IRC is void for vagueness, USA v. Gilbertson, OPENING BRIEF
-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
[This text is formatted in Courier 10, non-proportional spacing.]
This is an excerpt from Issue #7 in Gilbertson's
OPENING BRIEF, now before the 8th Circuit in
St. Louis, Missouri state:
[begin excerpt]
(G) The Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") as a whole is
unconstitutional and void for exhibiting deliberate
vagueness with respect to its territorial application.
IRC 7851(a)(6)(A) is likewise void for vagueness, for
exhibiting a recursive self-reference, and for leaving
doubt as to the meaning of the term "this title" with
respect to the legal force and effect of all provisions
within subtitle F: Procedure and Administration, of
Title 26, U.S.C., notably sections 7206, 7401, and 7402
in chief. Such doubt should be resolved in favor of
those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid. See
Nature and Cause Clause in the Sixth Amendment.
Appellees allege original jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
sections 7401 and 7402 [sic]. Title 26, U.S.C., and the Internal
Revenue Code ("IRC") are not one and the same, because Title 26
as such has never been enacted into positive law. See pertinent
rules for prima facie and conclusive evidence of the law, as
defined in Title 1, U.S.C. Both sections 7401 and 7402 fall
within subtitle F, which contains all the enforcement mechanisms
of the IRC. As such, said sections have never taken effect,
because IRC 7851(a)(6)(A) is controlling, to wit:
General rule. The provisions of subtitle F shall take
effect on the day after the date of enactment of this title
[sic] ....
[emphasis added]
To make matters worse, IRC 7851(a)(6)(A) also falls within
subtitle F, raising the specter of vagueness for exhibiting a
recursive self-reference. It takes effect when it takes effect!
Appellant enjoys and hereby asserts His fundamental Right to
clear and unambiguous laws. See "Void for Vagueness" doctrine;
Cruikshank supra. U.S. v. De Cadena, 105 F.Supp. 202, 204 (1952)
lists a number of excellent authorities for the origin of this
doctrine (see Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 (1939)) and
for its development (see Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91
(1945), Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, and Jordan v. De
George, 341 U.S. 223 (1951)). Connally infra sets the rule:
Appellant's Opening Brief: Page 44 of 50
And a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of
an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence
must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application, violates the first essential of due process of
law.
[Connally et al. v. General Construction Co.]
[269 U.S 385, 391 (1926), emphasis added]
Appellant reminds this honorable Court of the discussion
supra concerning the term "this title" at 28 U.S.C. 1867(d) and
in the Historical and Statutory Notes after 28 U.S.C. 132 (see
Page 30 et seq.). There is no question but that the consistent
legislative practice is to use the term "this title" to refer to
Titles of the United States Codes (whether enacted or not).
The average American cannot be expected to have the skill
required to navigate the journey We just took through the verbal
swamps in Titles 26 and 28, U.S.C., nor does the average American
have the time and motivation required to make such a journey.
Chicanery does not make good law. The rules of statutory
construction fully support this unavoidable conclusion:
... [I]f it is intended that regulations will be of a
specific and definitive nature then it will be clear that
the only safe method of interpretation will be one that
"shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy, and to
suppress subtle inventions and evasions for the continuance
of the mischief ...."
[Statutes and Statutory Construction, by J. G. Sutherland]
[3rd Edition, Volume 2, Section 4007, page 280 (1943)]
The Supreme Court has also agreed, in no uncertain terms, in
Cruikshank supra (a seminal authority in at least two respects),
and as follows:
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the
established rule not to extend their provisions, by
implication, beyond the clear import of the language used,
or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not
specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are
construed most strongly against the Government, and in favor
of the citizen.
[United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story 369]
[emphasis added]
Appellant's Opening Brief: Page 45 of 50
... [K]eeping in mind the well settled rule, that the
citizen is exempt from taxation, unless the same is imposed
by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the
construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be
resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be
laid ....
[Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McLain]
[192 U.S. 397 at 416 (1904), emphasis added]
On what basis, then, should the Internal Revenue Service be
allowed to extend the provisions of the IRC beyond the clear
import of the language used? On what basis can the IRS act, when
that language has no clear import? On what basis is the IRS
justified in enlarging their operations so as to embrace matters
not specifically pointed out? The answer is tyranny. The
"golden" retriever has broken his leash and is now tearing up the
neighborhood -- to fetch the gold. What a service!
Consider for a moment the sheer size of the class of People
now affected by the fraudulent 16th amendment. First of all,
take into account all those Americans who have passed away, but
paid taxes into the Treasury after 1913. How many of those
correctly understood all the rules, when People like Frank R.
Brushaber were confused as early as 1914? Add to that number all
those Americans who are still alive today, and who have paid
taxes to the IRS because they thought there was a law, and they
thought that law was the 16th amendment. After all, they were
told as much by numerous federal officials, and possibly also
their parents, friends, relatives, school teachers, scout
masters, colleagues, and news anchors. Don't high school civics
classes now spend a lot of time teaching students how to complete
IRS forms and schedules, instead of teaching the Constitution?
Donald C. Alexander, when he was Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, published an official statement in the Federal Register
Appellant's Opening Brief: Page 46 of 50
that the 16th amendment was the federal government's general
authority to tax the incomes of individuals and corporations.
See Chapter 1 and Appendix J in The Federal Zone. Sorry, Donald,
you were wrong. At this point in time, it is impossible for Us
to determine whether you were lying, or whether you too were a
victim of the fraud. Just how many People are in the same
general class of those affected by the fraudulent 16th amendment?
Is it 200 million? Is it 300 million? Whatever it is, it just
boggles the imagination. It certainly does involve also a very
large number of federal employees who went to work for Uncle Sam
in good faith. The tax is voluntary! Ask Senator Barbara Boxer.
It is clear, there is a huge difference between the area
covered by the federal zone, and the area covered by the 50
states. Money is a powerful motivation for all of us. Congress
had literally trillions of dollars to gain by convincing most
Americans they were inside its revenue base when, in fact, most
Americans were outside its revenue base, and remain outside even
today. This is deception on a grand scale, and the proof of this
deception is found in the Code itself. It is no wonder why
public relations "officials" of the IRS cringe in fear when
dedicated Americans admit, out loud and in Person, that They have
read the law. It is quite stunning how the carefully crafted
definitions of "United States" do appear to unlock a Code that is
horribly complex and deliberately so. As fate would have it,
these carefully crafted definitions also expose perhaps the
greatest fiscal fraud that has ever been perpetrated upon any
People at any time in the history of the world. It is now time
for a shift in the wind. Amen.
[end excerpt]
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in toolbar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 10, non-proportional spacing.] 13
-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
-> Posted by: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar] (by way of Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar])
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail